This did strike me as dim too. It’s worrying.I worry that Starmer (presumably after advice was offered) has made a mistake by cranking up the personal attacks on Sunak. By attacking a 4 month old PM for more than a decade's worth of (and I can't quite get my head around this) something to do with not locking up paedophiles, seems very nuanced. Only the dimmest of floating voter, the sort to daub threats on a paediatrician's house, are likely to be triggered here. And only if they can get their head around the accusation.
I heard a labour MP defend this on R5 this morning. A plucky display. But it smacked of a (semi-successful) argument in a debating society contest at a mid ranking university (better than East Anglia, not as prestigious as QMUL) where she won on points. Maybe. The tory spokesman quite rightly argued that by the same logic, a former DPP (*cough* Kier Starmer *cough*) supports paedophiles by failing to (something something something) Jimmy Savile.
I don't really see the value of nuanced posturing dog attacks, unless the trope already resonates, and the gambit firms up support. I think Sunak is a bit of a suit, but he obviously works hard and smart (even if his getting rich was simply the product of successfully wooing a rich bird - I couldn't do that - not that I'd want to, but anyway...) so to accuse him of being either lazy and useless, or pro-paedophile, strikes me as being a bit dim. There are easier ways' of showing someone is lazy and useless.
Never plan an ad campaign during a massive liquid lunch with fellow members of an opinion bubble. (I think there was a thread on NSC on this, years ago).
Is Starmer going to crush all my hopes and dreams? Hmmmmm.....
Hopefully someone will be along soon to explain how I have made a mistake....
Personally, I think it was a weird thing for Labour to do, but they don’t seem to be backing down on this. I saw Wes Streeting telling Trevor Phillips on telly this morning that he approved of it and that there was more (presumably of the same) to come.I worry that Starmer (presumably after advice was offered) has made a mistake by cranking up the personal attacks on Sunak. By attacking a 4 month old PM for more than a decade's worth of (and I can't quite get my head around this) something to do with not locking up paedophiles, seems very nuanced. Only the dimmest of floating voter, the sort to daub threats on a paediatrician's house, are likely to be triggered here. And only if they can get their head around the accusation.
I heard a labour MP defend this on R5 this morning. A plucky display. But it smacked of a (semi-successful) argument in a debating society contest at a mid ranking university (better than East Anglia, not as prestigious as QMUL) where she won on points. Maybe. The tory spokesman quite rightly argued that by the same logic, a former DPP (*cough* Kier Starmer *cough*) supports paedophiles by failing to (something something something) Jimmy Savile.
I don't really see the value of nuanced posturing dog attacks, unless the trope already resonates, and the gambit firms up support. I think Sunak is a bit of a suit, but he obviously works hard and smart (even if his getting rich was simply the product of successfully wooing a rich bird - I couldn't do that - not that I'd want to, but anyway...) so to accuse him of being either lazy and useless, or pro-paedophile, strikes me as being a bit dim. There are easier ways' of showing someone is lazy and useless.
Never plan an ad campaign during a massive liquid lunch with fellow members of an opinion bubble. (I think there was a thread on NSC on this, years ago).
Is Starmer going to crush all my hopes and dreams? Hmmmmm.....
Hopefully someone will be along soon to explain how I have made a mistake....
I hate that sort of campaigning but it (unfortunately) works. It gets people talking the Government's record. It's caught the Tories out because they didn't expect it from Labour and its exactly the way they are going to fight the next election.This did strike me as dim too. It’s worrying.
The Tory attack dogs just concentrate on the Boats and Gender as a stick on Starmer
If there is any high ground left, then Starmer has to try and take it.
Keep concentrating on real life issues and not
just get into the cesspool to pick a fight with the likes of Lee Anderson
My thoughts too, if we keep out of the gutter and the Tories can't find too much mud to fling elsewhere, we should have a landslide. But I do feel Keir still needs to be more dynamic to shut off any slight chance of them winning too many seats, every seat will count to turn around the countries rebuild.So much low hanging fruit to attack the Tories, no need to head to the gutter
NHS on the brink, broken economy, spiralling debt, cronyism etc etc
Sunak being investigated by Watchdog
And he is meant to be the calming reassuarance of modern Conservatism
Then attack the actual problems with him, not the old “paedo” shit. It’s lowest common denominator.I think Labour HAVE to attack Sunak personally, otherwise there is a danger some voters will conclude Rishi is a lot better and more stable than Boris / Liz Truss / Theresa May and deserves another 4 years to sort out their mess.
Sunak is better than Johnson or Truss. But its a bit like saying I'd rather catch typhoid than malaria...I think Labour HAVE to attack Sunak personally, otherwise there is a danger some voters will conclude Rishi is a lot better and more stable than Boris / Liz Truss / Theresa May and deserves another 4 years to sort out their mess.
shouldn't they want convince voters on the basis of their policies? novel maybe, i'd like to see them try.I think Labour HAVE to attack Sunak personally, otherwise there is a danger some voters will conclude Rishi is a lot better and more stable than Boris / Liz Truss / Theresa May and deserves another 4 years to sort out their mess.
Why would he refuse?
The actual interview. He was given several chances to declare his interests, and bottled it.Rishi Sunak faces ethics watchdog probe over Budget ‘benefit’ to wife’s shares
PM accused of ducking ‘proper scrutiny’ as he faces probe relating to wife’s shares in firm boosted by Budgetwww.independent.co.uk
The prime minister is facing questions after it emerged that a childcare agency part-owned by his wife Akshata Murty would benefit from policy changes in the budget.
The prime minister did not mention his wife’s interest when speaking about the childcare reforms at a parliamentary committee last month – despite being asked if he had anything to declare.
Indeed. And - frustratingly - many voters will put up with his brand of Tory shit because they know their place, he isn't Liz Truss and "it's better the devil you know".Sunak is better than Johnson or Truss. But its a bit like saying I'd rather catch typhoid than malaria...
And because of these headlines, he’ll soon be making an appearance in the Ukraine and will have those that know their place drooling over him!Indeed. And - frustratingly - many voters will put up with his brand of Tory shit because they know their place, he isn't Liz Truss and "it's better the devil you know".
It really does not matter, whatever the lies or abuses of power of these Tory's, they always get away with it or change the rules post event, corrupt to the core and yet still " running " the country. It's sickening.Rishi Sunak faces ethics watchdog probe over Budget ‘benefit’ to wife’s shares
PM accused of ducking ‘proper scrutiny’ as he faces probe relating to wife’s shares in firm boosted by Budgetwww.independent.co.uk
The prime minister is facing questions after it emerged that a childcare agency part-owned by his wife Akshata Murty would benefit from policy changes in the budget.
The prime minister did not mention his wife’s interest when speaking about the childcare reforms at a parliamentary committee last month – despite being asked if he had anything to declare.